Ethics · 15 Aug 2026

PUCL vs State of Maharashtra police encounter guidelines

With reference to the police encounter accountability case in Bihar, which one of the following is the correctly matched pair?

APUCL vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) - Laid down 16 guidelines including mandatory magisterial inquiry and independent investigation into police encounters
BPUCL vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) - Mandated that compensation be paid to a victim's family only after criminal conviction of the officer involved
CThe Bihar judicial inquiry's interim report - Publicly named the officer found responsible for the encounter
DThe Supreme Court - Directly ordered the Bihar government to constitute the judicial inquiry into the killing
This question is based on: The Family Got a Job and Cash. The State Still Hasn't Said Who Was Wrong.
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 15 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Bihar government compensated the family of Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, killed in a contested police encounter on June 17, 2026, with a job and financial assistance based on an interim judicial report whose findings on culpability remain undisclosed.

Why for UPSC

GS4 case-study-linked questions often test whether aspirants can correctly attribute a real institutional safeguard (PUCL guidelines) to its actual content, rather than assuming it covers compensation timing or officer-naming procedures it does not.

Prelims summary

The Supreme Court's PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) judgment set 16 guidelines for investigating police encounters, including mandatory magisterial inquiry and independent investigation; it does not tie compensation to a prior conviction, illustrating why material relief and institutional accountability can be delivered on different timelines.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.